mr president

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

the answer to your post to Sorehoof! Either option you give in the answer is WRONG! This isn't some game(although politics is probably considered sport in D.C.) You appear to be OK with this.

?? Sorry, I am still missing your point, I guess. I'm not okay with what is happening now, because I consider the GOP to be doing massive political game-playing at the expense of the way the Senate is supposed to work.

Hoof made the point some think all legal measures (and fillibuster is certainly within the rules) should be used to oppose legislation someone doesn't want to pass.

To me, it is perfectly acceptable to work within the rules, within parlimentary procedure. The Senate is designed to pass legislation based upon a simple majority. Fillibuster is allowable and legal within the rules (although it's covered and changable by Senate rules)

What is happening currently, however, is unprecedented (and the Dems increased it's use in the last session, too, don't ignore that) in that fillibuster, and the requiring of a cloture vote of 60 to end discussion and have a vote on an issue, is the "new norm" for virtually every bill.

In other words, bills in the Senate should be able to pass by a 51-49 vote. That is how the Senate works (remember all states, even tiny ones, have the same number of votes as the big states, two).

The current Senate minority party, however, is forcing virtually all bills to have a 60-vote majority (the number of votes necessary to approve cloture and allow a bill to exit fillibuster and then be voted upon)

The minority party is, practically speaking, changing the Senate rules to require all legislation have 60 votes to pass.

What do you think about that?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

?? Sorry, I am still missing your point, I guess. I'm not okay with what is happening now, because I consider the GOP to be doing massive political game-playing at the expense of the way the Senate is supposed to work.

Hoof made the point some think all legal measures (and fillibuster is certainly within the rules) should be used to oppose legislation someone doesn't want to pass.

To me, it is perfectly acceptable to work within the rules, within parlimentary procedure. The Senate is designed to pass legislation based upon a simple majority. Fillibuster is allowable and legal within the rules (although it's covered and changable by Senate rules)

What is happening currently, however, is unprecedented (and the Dems increased it's use in the last session, too, don't ignore that) in that fillibuster, and the requiring of a cloture vote of 60 to end discussion and have a vote on an issue, is the "new norm" for virtually every bill.

In other words, bills in the Senate should be able to pass by a 51-49 vote. That is how the Senate works (remember all states, even tiny ones, have the same number of votes as the big states, two).

The current Senate minority party, however, is forcing virtually all bills to have a 60-vote majority (the number of votes necessary to approve cloture and allow a bill to exit fillibuster and then be voted upon)

The minority party is, practically speaking, changing the Senate rules to require all legislation have 60 votes to pass.

What do you think about that?

So what you are saying is that the Dems are "letting" the GOP use tactics that are not legal? No of course not, they ARE legal and perfectly acceptable to both parties hence thier use.

So the Dems were content to sit on thier hands and just go along with whatever was presented when they were the minority party? Or did they use whatever tools at thier disposal to get thier point across?

[Riot]

So what you are saying is that the Dems are "letting" the GOP use tactics that are not legal?

No, I said that fillibuster is legal, twice, within the quote you quoted.

So the Dems were content to sit on thier hands and just go along with whatever was presented when they were the minority party? Or did they use whatever tools at thier disposal to get thier point across?

The Dems used it, too. And the use has been increasing over the years. But when one looks at the number of fillibusters (requiring cloture, essentially thus requiring 60 votes for legislation to pass), this Senate has the most, ever.

Your next post will just say, "prove it", so here's a chart on fillibuster numbers requiring cloture
http://www.nolanchart.com/article7183.html

And here's the current Senate voting record
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...menu_111_1.htm

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, I said that fillibuster is legal, twice, within the quote you quoted.



The Dems used it, too. And the use has been increasing over the years. But when one looks at the number of fillibusters (requiring cloture, essentially thus requiring 60 votes for legislation to pass), this Senate has the most, ever.

Your next post will just say, "prove it", so here's a chart on fillibuster numbers requiring cloture
http://www.nolanchart.com/article7183.html

And here's the current Senate voting record
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...menu_111_1.htm

waterboarding works..

[Riot]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

waterboarding works..

Please, most Senators are old. Just running water in the sink would probably induce painful prostate awareness.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, I said that fillibuster is legal, twice, within the quote you quoted.



The Dems used it, too. And the use has been increasing over the years. But when one looks at the number of fillibusters (requiring cloture, essentially thus requiring 60 votes for legislation to pass), this Senate has the most, ever.

Your next post will just say, "prove it", so here's a chart on fillibuster numbers requiring cloture
http://www.nolanchart.com/article7183.html

And here's the current Senate voting record
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...menu_111_1.htm

No proof needed, just interesting that you condemn perfectly acceptable practices

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So what you are saying is that the Dems are "letting" the GOP use tactics that are not legal? No of course not, they ARE legal and perfectly acceptable to both parties hence thier use.

So the Dems were content to sit on thier hands and just go along with whatever was presented when they were the minority party? Or did they use whatever tools at thier disposal to get thier point across?

Pretty sure the dems didnt sit on thier hands when Bush II was trying to pass his most important measure.. one that would have been better than anything I've ever heard a Dem propose. Social Security Reform.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Pretty sure the dems didnt sit on thier hands when Bush II was trying to pass his most important measure.. one that would have been better than anything I've ever heard a Dem propose. Social Security Reform.

I think this is an apt comparison.
Everybody with half a brain realized that the Republican plan for social security was a giant sack of crap, but did the Dems come up with their own plan to solve an obvious problem? Nope. They just complained about the Republicans' plan.
In fairness to the Dems, they were right to complain about the Republican plan which - given the turn in the stock market in the years after it was proposed - would have been a complete disaster, but they should also have proposed a reasonable alternative that called for raising the retirement age, etc. As far as I know, they never did that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Our Govt. was set up to move s l o w l y. It was designed so that even if one party had control of both Houses of Congress the minority party would still have a voice. What do you think the Founders of this great Nation would think of 2500 page Bills that in the words of one Democrat require "3 days and 3 lawyers to read" then they still don't know what it says if they even bother to read it at all? Do you think they would be proud of this bloated, power grabbing, overtaxing, entitlement loving, deceiving, meddling, Constitution ignoring, nanny state of a corrupt Govt.that cares more about 30 million people without healthcare insurance, a lot of whom are here illegally, or others who don't even want it, than the 30 million adult Americans who can't read or write even though we spend more tax dollars on education than most other countries spend on everything? The spineless weasels in D.C. care more about being "politically correct" than about just being correct.

Aren't differences of opinion a great thing? Isn't it wonderful that most of us respect the rights of others to hold differing opinions?

Our government isn't designed necessarily to move slowly. Actually it's pretty clean and simple in design. There are simply Constitutional safeguards in place between the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches.

For example, the first Medicare bill passed during Lyndon Johnson's presidency became effective nearly immediately.

The minority party currently in the Congress and Senate have a clear voice. In fact, they have a voice so powerful they have been able to obstruct what the majority party wants to do.

I think the founders of this great nation would be thrilled that America places it's citizens first, and looks out for all it's citizens, rather than ignoring those that "have not".

2500 page bills that have been available for a few months is a simple thing for Senators and Congressmen to have their aids read. And these bills have been online and available to the public in printed form for a few weeks now. It's a straw man argument, if someone, at this stage, is still whining, "I haven't read the bill" or "I don't understand it!"

Unfortunately, misinformation still occurs, like thinking illegal aliens would be covered, when they are explicitly excluded.

People have to be healthy and alive, first, in order to be able to learn. The United States of America has a terrible infant mortality rate, and too many of our children are going hungry and without medical care.

I've lived through many years of having a political party in power that I didn't care for, whose policies I didn't agree with. That is the price of being an American citizen - allowing other American citizens to have their turn at a voice.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think the founders of this great nation would be thrilled that America places it's citizens first, and looks out for all it's citizens, rather than ignoring those that "have not".

.

I think they'd be appalled that regardless of who is in power they are going against what the majority of Americans are for and it's sickening. Give me a break 36%. yea that's a majority!!!!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01...y6084856.shtml

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

Aren't differences of opinion a great thing? Isn't it wonderful that most of us respect the rights of others to hold differing opinions?

Our government isn't designed necessarily to move slowly. Actually it's pretty clean and simple in design. There are simply Constitutional safeguards in place between the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches.

For example, the first Medicare bill passed during Lyndon Johnson's presidency became effective nearly immediately.

The minority party currently in the Congress and Senate have a clear voice. In fact, they have a voice so powerful they have been able to obstruct what the majority party wants to do.

I think the founders of this great nation would be thrilled that America places it's citizens first, and looks out for all it's citizens, rather than ignoring those that "have not".

2500 page bills that have been available for a few months is a simple thing for Senators and Congressmen to have their aids read. And these bills have been online and available to the public in printed form for a few weeks now. It's a straw man argument, if someone, at this stage, is still whining, "I haven't read the bill" or "I don't understand it!"

Unfortunately, misinformation still occurs, like thinking illegal aliens would be covered, when they are explicitly excluded.

People have to be healthy and alive, first, in order to be able to learn. The United States of America has a terrible infant mortality rate, and too many of our children are going hungry and without medical care.

I've lived through many years of having a political party in power that I didn't care for, whose policies I didn't agree with. That is the price of being an American citizen - allowing other American citizens to have their turn at a voice.

1 Yes.
2 Yes, our Govt. was designed to move slowly.
3 L.B.J. was a wannabee socialist who wasn't ready for War (sound familiar?)
4 Things seem to be going great guns, despite the minorities obstructionism, and a clear public disapproval.
5 I think the Founders would be appalled at the willingness of the American people to give up their Freedom and Liberty for fear of having to take care of themselves.
6 The 2500 page Bills were available for a few days at best. 500 page amendments were made available hours before the vote.
7 Yes they are.
8 It's not the Govt. concern to keep you alive or healthy. There are plenty of programs to help kids and people that for some reason need help. This isn't missing from our society. Most people give to charity. Don't you? I don't expect the Govt. to take, in taxes or any other way, something from someone who worked for it and needs it, to someone who can work for it but doesn't.
9 Me too. I still don't.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

?? Sorry, I am still missing your point, I guess. I'm not okay with what is happening now, because I consider the GOP to be doing massive political game-playing at the expense of the way the Senate is supposed to work.

Hoof made the point some think all legal measures (and fillibuster is certainly within the rules) should be used to oppose legislation someone doesn't want to pass.

To me, it is perfectly acceptable to work within the rules, within parlimentary procedure. The Senate is designed to pass legislation based upon a simple majority. Fillibuster is allowable and legal within the rules (although it's covered and changable by Senate rules)

What is happening currently, however, is unprecedented (and the Dems increased it's use in the last session, too, don't ignore that) in that fillibuster, and the requiring of a cloture vote of 60 to end discussion and have a vote on an issue, is the "new norm" for virtually every bill.

In other words, bills in the Senate should be able to pass by a 51-49 vote. That is how the Senate works (remember all states, even tiny ones, have the same number of votes as the big states, two).

The current Senate minority party, however, is forcing virtually all bills to have a 60-vote majority (the number of votes necessary to approve cloture and allow a bill to exit fillibuster and then be voted upon)

The minority party is, practically speaking, changing the Senate rules to require all legislation have 60 votes to pass.

What do you think about that?

The GOP is severely handicapped by both houses in Congress being held by Dems. The fillibuster threat is the last straw of defense against the "Unholy Trinity" and their clandestine plans.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

The GOP is severely handicapped by both houses in Congress being held by Dems. The fillibuster threat is the last straw of defense against the "Unholy Trinity" and their clandestine plans.

Yeah, those dang citizens, electing who they wanted to the Senate and Congress, with the resultant threat of passing agendas the public obviously wanted passed!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, those dang citizens, electing who they wanted to the Senate and Congress, with the resultant threat of passing agendas the public obviously wanted passed!

Here you make the assumption that what is passed is what was promised.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Here you make the assumption that what is passed is what was promised.

That is a good point. We sure need to get a public option back in the healthcare bill.

[SOREHOOF]

I'll be back.

[timmgirvan]

me too.....busy day,but no football!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

That is a good point. We sure need to get a public option back in the healthcare bill.

Then the Dems can resort to fillibuster as they get tossed out in droves.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Then the Dems can resort to fillibuster as they get tossed out in droves.

but that's apparently not nearly as terrifying.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

That is a good point. We sure need to get a public option back in the healthcare bill.

and call welfare 'the option to not work'

How about just call it what it is? Socialized Medicine. For those so PC their anus is oozing juices, Subsidized Medicine.